RTP 1 for 2011 - Queensland Audit Office · within Queensland Corrective Services is responsible for the management of offenders in the community. Its aim is to break the cycle of

ISSN 1834-1128

Report to Parliament No. 1 for 2011

Management of offenders subject to supervision in the community

Performance Management Systems audit

Enhancing public sector accountability

Auditor-General of Queensland

Performance Management Systems audit

Report to Parliament No. 1 for 2011

Management of offenders subject to supervision in the community

© The State of Queensland. Queensland Audit Office (2011)

Copyright protects this publication except for purposes permitted by the Copyright Act. Reproduction by whatever means is prohibited without the prior written permission of the Auditor-General of Queensland. Reference to this document is permitted only with appropriate acknowledgement.

Queensland Audit Office Level 14, 53 Albert Street, Brisbane Qld 4000 GPO Box 1139, Brisbane Qld 4001 Phone 07 3149 6000 Fax 07 3149 6011 Email [email protected] Web www.qao.qld.gov.au

This report has been produced using paper stock manufactured to ISO 14001 environmental standards. Hanno Art Silk is totally chlorine free, acid free, has pulp sourced from sustainably managed forests and meets ISO 9706 archival standards. It was proudly printed in Queensland by Goprint meeting ISO 14001 environmental and ISO 9001 quality standards.

ISSN 1834-1136

Publications are available at www.qao.qld.gov.au or by phone on 07 3149 6000.

Auditor-General of Queensland

February 2011

The Honourable R J Mickel MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Parliament House BRISBANE QLD 4000

Dear Mr Speaker

This report is prepared under Part 3 Division 3 of the Auditor-General Act 2009, and is titled Management of offenders subject to supervision in the community. It is number one in the series of Auditor-General Reports to Parliament for 2011.

In accordance with s.67 of the Act, would you please arrange for the report to be tabled in the Legislative Assembly.

Yours sincerely

Glenn Poole Auditor-General

Level 14, 53 Albert St, Brisbane Qld 4000

GPO Box 1139, Brisbane Qld 4001

Phone: 07 3149 6000

Fax: 07 3149 6011

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.qao.qld.gov.au

Contents Executive summary................................................................................................1

Audit overview................................................................................................................................ 1Audit conclusion............................................................................................................................. 1Key findings ................................................................................................................................... 2Departmental response.................................................................................................................. 5

1 | Audit outline ......................................................................................................71.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 71.2 Audit objective .................................................................................................................... 91.3 Audit scope....................................................................................................................... 10

2 | Probation and parole accountability ................................................................112.1 Accountability – overview ................................................................................................. 122.2 Accountability systems ..................................................................................................... 132.3 Accountability – recommendations ................................................................................... 17

3 | Probation and parole offender management...................................................193.1 Offender management – overview.................................................................................... 203.2 Offender management – systems in place ....................................................................... 233.3 Offender management standards ..................................................................................... 253.4 Effectiveness of individual offender management ............................................................ 253.5 ‘Throughcare’ and transitions ........................................................................................... 273.6 High Risk Offender Management Unit .............................................................................. 303.7 Offender management – recommendations ..................................................................... 30

4 | Probation and parole workforce ......................................................................314.1 Workforce – overview ....................................................................................................... 324.2 Workforce – systems in place........................................................................................... 324.3 Staff mix............................................................................................................................ 344.4 Training............................................................................................................................. 364.5 Workforce – recommendations......................................................................................... 38

5 | Offender intervention programs ......................................................................395.1 Offender intervention programs – overview ...................................................................... 405.2 Offender intervention programs – management and delivery ........................................... 415.3 Offender intervention programs – evaluation.................................................................... 425.4 Intervention programs – recommendations ...................................................................... 43

6 | Appendices .....................................................................................................456.1 Audit procedures............................................................................................................... 456.2 PMS audit approach ......................................................................................................... 456.3 Previous audit coverage ................................................................................................... 466.4 Offender management process ........................................................................................ 476.5 Staff role descriptions ....................................................................................................... 486.6 Description of order types................................................................................................. 496.7 List of intervention programs ............................................................................................ 506.8 Acronyms.......................................................................................................................... 526.9 Glossary ........................................................................................................................... 536.10 References ....................................................................................................................... 54

7 | Auditor-General Reports to Parliament ...........................................................577.1 Tabled in 2011.................................................................................................................. 57

Auditor-General Report to Parliament No. 1 for 2011 | Executive summary 1

Executive summary Audit overview Community based supervision provides offenders with opportunities to remain integrated with society, develop community support, transition from prison back to society, as well as maintain accommodation and employment. Supervising offenders in the community is promoted as a cost effective and efficient alternative to prison, but is often little understood. The 2008-09 average daily cost of community based supervision in Queensland was $9.51 per offender, compared to the daily cost for Custodial Operations of $171.79 per day per prisoner.1 Despite this significant difference in cost, queries regarding the effectiveness and perceived risks of community supervision are often raised in Parliament and the media. The ability to efficiently, effectively and economically manage offenders serving their sentence in the community is essential in maintaining and raising the confidence of the Parliament, judiciary and the community in this method of corrective services.

Managing offenders in Queensland is the responsibility of Queensland Corrective Services, a division of the Department of Community Safety. Most offenders managed by Queensland Corrective Services at any particular time, live in the community rather than the State’s correctional centres. In 2009-10 there was a daily average of 14,467 offenders on community supervision compared to a daily average of 5,629 prisoners in custody.2 The Probation and Parole Directorate within Queensland Corrective Services is responsible for the management of offenders in the community. Its aim is to break the cycle of reoffending, enforce court and parole board orders and improve community safety and confidence.3 To do this the Probation and Parole Directorate has a range of offender management processes.

The objective of this Performance Management Systems (PMS) audit was to determine whether the Department of Community Safety has appropriate systems in place which enable it to assess whether the management of offenders subject to supervision in the community is being achieved efficiently, effectively and economically.

Audit conclusion The current Probation and Parole Model was implemented in 2006, and has seen the Department of Community Safety put in place good systems and practices to manage offenders subject to supervision in the community. The Department of Community Safety is efficient at measuring effectiveness at very high levels, but is less efficient at measuring effectiveness at lower operational levels that would allow for the modification and improvement of systems and practices. Offender management is based on a set of principles supported by evidence-based research and adopted by other Australian jurisdictions. These systems have a sound legislative base supported by comprehensive policies and procedures.

1 Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision, Report on Government Services 2010, Productivity Commission, Canberra, Table 8A.7. 2 Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision, Report on Government Services 2010, Productivity Commission, Canberra, Table 8A.3. 3 Department of Community Safety, Delivering Justice – Improving Corrections, Queensland Corrective services Framework for Reform, 2010-2014 and Probation and Parole Operational Plan 2010-2011.

2 Auditor-General Report to Parliament No. 1 for 2011 | Executive summary

Nevertheless, I have identified opportunities for the department to continue to build its capacity and enable it to deliver services more effectively, efficiently and economically. These improvement opportunities include:

• Completion of the accreditation, evaluation and reporting of offender intervention programs.

• Greater alignment of public reporting of efficiency and effectiveness performance indicators.

• Development of more relevant public reporting performance measures, specifically about the aims of breaking the cycle of reoffending and improving community safety and confidence.

• Evaluation of external program providers.

• Earlier completion of basic formal training for newly appointed officers.

• Provision of formal training for higher level duties and more difficult offender management roles.

• Evaluation, revision and tailoring of Indigenous intervention programs.

• Establishment of clear community supervision standards either through clear linkage of procedures and operations to national standards or tailoring a set of Queensland standards.

The department has initiatives underway or planned which could incorporate the identified improvement opportunities. I encourage them to complete these initiatives in a timely manner.

Key findings

Probation and parole accountability (Section 2) The department’s management of offenders subject to supervision in the community is guided by the Probation and Parole Governance and Accountability Framework and a performance review system. The Governance and Accountability Framework and the performance review system operate across all levels of offender management and provide a sound process for internal monitoring.

Regional performance review meetings have been progressively implemented since 2009. This review process incorporates the principles underpinning good performance measures as detailed in the Queensland Audit Office Better Practice Guide on Performance Reviews 2010.The performance review meetings have resulted in the identification and expansion of localised good practices into other regions and also initiated special focus reviews.

The key performance measures reported publicly in the department’s Annual Report, the Service Delivery Statement and the Report on Government Services4 are not aligned. While these documents serve similar reporting functions, greater alignment in reporting key performance measures would provide a more complete and informative assessment of performance.

For example, the key performance measures relevant to reoffending are only reported in the Report on Government Services and not in the department’s Annual Report or Service Delivery Statement. Many of the performance measures that are reported provide limited value in assessing effectiveness, efficiency or economy of offender management systems. The difficulty in identifying meaningful key performance measures for offender management is an issue that has been raised in other Australian jurisdictions and is not unique to Queensland.5

4 Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision 2010, Report on Government Services 2010, Productivity Commission, Canberra. 5 For example, Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, Managing Offenders on Community Corrections Orders, November 2009.


Probation and parole offender management (Section 3) The department has a substantial offender management system in place to identify and manage individual offender risks and needs against community safety, in accordance with appropriate legislation and standards. This system is currently based on 41 procedures with a focus on identifying and managing the risks and needs of offenders against the needs and safety of the community. While the procedures are consistent with the nationally accepted Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia – revised 2004 (the Guidelines), direct references to relevant sections of the Guidelines would enhance Queensland Corrective Services policies and procedures.

The evaluation of the effectiveness of offender management is largely based on the number of offenders completing their orders and the number of contraventions detected. These measures provide limited value for assessing effectiveness.

Transitional support and the ‘dynamic risk factors’ regarding accommodation, employment, relationship support, substance abuse, gambling and domestic violence are identified by the department as significant in reducing reoffending.

At the time of audit there was no process in place for evaluating the effectiveness of the offender management process in providing transitional support or in identifying and addressing an offender’s ‘dynamic risk factors’. There is no formal exit or finalisation process with offenders at the completion of their orders to further aid in assessing the effectiveness of intervention strategies and overall offender management.

The offender management system lacks effective coordination between Custodial Operations and the Probation and Parole Directorate. Such coordination is important for the seamless transition of prisoners into community supervision.6 The department is implementing structures aimed at improving coordination, particularly with regard to transitions by creating positions for Transitions Coordinators and by revising and expanding the Offender Reintegration Support Service.

The High Risk Offender Management Unit (HROMU) has been established to manage high risk sexual offenders. This unit coordinates the management of high risk sexual offenders under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 across the State. There is a process in place to ensure the assessment of each individual high risk sexual offender and that the level of supervision and monitoring matches the assessed risk. Offenders are either managed by HROMU Case Managers or in some cases by experienced Regional Case Managers.

The audit found that Regional Case Managers supervising offenders subject to orders under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 tend to have greater case loads and a more limited knowledge of relevant legislation than HROMU Case Managers. There are processes in place for Regional Case Managers to receive support from the HROMU and ensure appropriate management of these offenders. Nevertheless, there is potential for greater consistency between HROMU and Regional Case Managers with regard to case loads and understanding of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003.

6 Australian Institute of Criminology, Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia – revised 2004, Section 3.2.


Probation and parole workforce (Section 4) All Reporting Officers and Case Managers employed by the department are required to have tertiary qualifications. All new Reporting Officers are required to complete the compulsory Reporting Officer Development Program (RODP), however, most do not receive this training for months after commencement, sometimes up to 12 months. This delay results in untrained staff managing offenders.

Probation and Parole District offices are bridging the gap caused by delays in staff receiving RODP training by providing their own training and supervision programs. This impacts on district staffing and resourcing and results in inconsistencies of skills and knowledge across districts. The delay in the completion of the RODP training may result in the early development of poor practices which have to be addressed when staff subsequently attend the RODP training.

There is no mandated formal training for positions above Reporting Officer or for some specific roles, such as Compliance Officers. As a result some staff displayed limited knowledge of key legislation relevant to their roles.

The Probation and Parole Directorate’s staff mix does not reflect offender demographics. Section 6.7 of the Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia – revised 2004 recommends the mix of staff managing offenders, as much as possible, reflects offender diversity. While it may not be possible to reflect offender diversity in every respect there may be opportunities to target staff recruitment in key areas to enable a more representative staff mix.

Offender intervention programs (Section 5) The department has established systems to provide intervention programs to offenders7. The accountability and management of offender intervention programs is guided by the Australian Offender Programs Standards – October 2005 and the Queensland Corrective Services’ OffenderInterventions Program Evaluation Framework. However, only a limited number of internal offender intervention programs have been evaluated and external program providers and programs have not been accredited or evaluated for effectiveness by the department. There are opportunities to expand intervention programs to meet the needs of all offenders who require them. Indigenous programs require further development and evaluation to align with specific needs.

7 An offender intervention program is a structured intervention that addresses the factors directly linked to offenders’ offending behaviour (Australian Offender Program Standards, October 2005, page 2).


Recommendations It is recommended the Department of Community Safety:

1 Align public reporting to ensure greater consistency of key performance measures between the Service Delivery Statement, Annual Report and the performance information provided for the Report on Government Services.

2 Establish comprehensive processes and measures to evaluate the effectiveness of offender management, specifically for the aims of breaking the cycle of reoffending and improving community safety and confidence.

3 Establish processes to develop greater consistency in case load and legislative knowledge between the High Risk Offender Management Unit and Regional Case Managers.

4 Establish processes to improve coordination of services between Custodial Operations and the Probation and Parole Directorate, including the evaluation of the effectiveness of Transitional Coordinators.

5 Ensure all staff at all levels of offender management receive timely and sufficient training, before, or immediately on commencing duties.

6 Develop strategies to provide a staff mix that better reflects the offender diversity in accordance with Section 6.7 of the Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia-revised 2004.

7 Ensure accreditation and evaluation of all intervention programs and continue the development of Indigenous programs to ensure relevance and effectiveness.

Departmental response The Director-General, Department of Community Safety provided the following response on 17 February 2011.

I appreciate the opportunity to review and consider the draft report and the recommendations. Since the commencement of the audit in July 2010 QCS have worked closely with members of the audit team to ensure comprehensive and accurate information has been provided to inform the report. The Commissioner, QCS concurs with my view the report is representative of this approach and appropriately informs the recommendations as currently framed.

The report reflects challenges faced by QCS in delivering high standards of community supervision services. Additionally, the report acknowledges the significant strategies established by the Probation and Parole Service as a highly accountable and innovative national leader in community supervision. I am pleased to highlight that whilst there is still a body of work in relation to a number of the recommendations, there has also been major progress and in some instances full implementation of responses to these audit recommendations.

In relation to recommendation one, QCS has initiated necessary steps to align QCS external performance reporting. Namely, the measures in the 2010 Service Delivery Statement (SDS) are more closely aligned with the Report on Government Services (RoGS). This has created greater uniformity in public reporting and ensures consistency between the SDS, Departmental Annual Report and RoGS. The completion of this work will be evidenced in the publication of the 2012 RoGS.


Regarding recommendation two, QCS will continue to focus on the implications of broader offender management standards on the evaluation of rehabilitative outcomes as work progresses on program evaluation, This is particularly relevant as we progress initiatives under the National Community Corrections Working Group focussing on strategies promoting community corrections as a viable alternative to imprisonment and the development of national standards, performance measures and targets. Additionally, the implementation of Probation and Parole's People, Resourcing, Innovation, Supervision and Management (PRISM) program of work will establish new internal measures of efficacy under a revised offender management model for probation and parole.

In response to recommendation three, planning work has commenced on the development of a comprehensive workgroup induction package for staff in each region who are supervising high risk offenders.

In relation to recommendation four and improving coordination of services between Custodial Operations, and Probation and Parole, the Offender Management Reform (OMR) Project will enhance procedures to improve the coordination of services and information sharing between Custodial Operations and Probation and Parole regarding transitional services for prisoners being released to community supervision. An examination of the Transitions Program will be undertaken as part of a broader project evaluation.

The PRISM program of work will also progress the implementation of an outsourced cyclic recruitment model that is informed by a comprehensive workforce planning framework including tailored indigenous attraction, retention and career paths to build and sustain a staff mix reflective of the diversity in the offender population. It is further anticipated that these deliverables will more effectively link and assist in facilitating a revised and enhanced pre-entry training framework for probation and parole that will address recommendations five and six.

In response to recommendation seven, evaluation processes for agency delivered criminogenic programs are an ongoing process with regular updates provided to agency executive management. The broader release of information will be considered as part of this reporting process. Processes for the accreditation of external programs and services in the Probation and Parole setting are currently being developed with a dedicated project to evaluate the Agency's Indigenous programs having commenced in January 2011.

In closing, all of the audit recommendations are accepted by the Department of Community Safety. I am confident the scope of reform work that commenced prior to the audit will now benefit from the issues raised and recommendations made to further focus and enhance deliverables to benefit community safety.

Auditor-General Report to Parliament No. 1 for 2011 | Audit outline 7

1 | Audit outline

1.1 Background Managing offenders in Queensland is the responsibility of Queensland Corrective Services, which is a division of the Department of Community Safety. The Department of Community Safety was formed as a result of machinery of government changes in March 2009. Figure 1A shows the organisational structure for Queensland Corrective Services, with the areas of audit focus highlighted.

Figure 1A – Queensland Corrective Services organisational structure

Source: Adapted from Department of Community Safety Organisational Structure, Annual Report 2009-10.

8 Auditor-General Report to Parliament No. 1 for 2011 | Audit outline

Most offenders managed by Queensland Corrective Services at any particular time live in the community, rather than the State’s correctional centres. In 2009-10 there was a daily average of 14,467 offenders on community supervision compared to 5,629 offenders in custodial facilities.8

The Probation and Parole Directorate within Queensland Corrective Services is responsible for managing and supervising offenders in the community. Offenders come under the management of the Probation and Parole Directorate either direct from the courts under various orders or after release from prison on parole. These orders consist of:

• Parole (granted by Parole Board)

• Court Ordered Parole

• Probation Orders

• Intensive Corrections Orders

• Prison/Probation Orders

• Community Service Orders

• Intensive Drug Rehabilitation Orders

• Supervision orders under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003

• Fine Option Orders.

Detailed descriptions of the various orders can be found at Section 6.6 of this report.

Queensland Corrective Services provides services in accordance with the Corrective Services Act 2006, Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 and related legislation. The Corrective Services Act 2006 defines the purpose of corrective services as providing community safety and crime prevention through the humane containment, supervision and rehabilitation of offenders. The Department of Community Safety’s Service Delivery Statement, 2010-11 states, among others, that the department will:

• Continue to enhance community safety and maintain the confidence of the judiciary by enhancing Probation and Parole presence in the community and working in partnership with other agencies to prevent offenders from re-offending.

• Continue to explore new ways of delivering services to ensure that the supervision of offenders is tailored to their assessed risk to the community.

• Provide $1.5 million to continue the delivery of the sexual offending treatment programs to prisoners to minimise their risk of reoffending.

• Continue to closely monitor offenders who are subject to orders under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 with intensive supervision, dedicated surveillance, electronic monitoring and partnerships with other agencies, and return offenders who breach conditions to custody if necessary.

• Launch a Social Responsibility Charter setting out the commitment to rehabilitating offenders to become productive citizens who can participate, in society, within the law.

8 Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision, Report on Government Services 2010, Productivity Commission, Canberra, Table 8A.3.

Auditor-General Report to Parliament No. 1 for 2011 | Audit outline 9

In accordance with the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 offenders must comply with the direction of an authorised Corrective Services Officer and must undertake community service work, programs and/or treatment as ordered by the court or authorised Corrective Services Officers.9 To ensure offender compliance, the Probation and Parole Directorate relies on a range of offender management processes and systems, including risk and need assessments, intervention strategies and supervision practices. These systems are detailed throughout this report.

The ability to efficiently, effectively and economically manage offenders serving their sentence in the community is essential in maintaining and raising the confidence of the Parliament, judiciary and the community in this method of corrective services.

Supervised graffiti removal undertaken under a community service order

1.2 Audit objective The objective of this performance management systems audit was to determine whether the Department of Community Safety has appropriate systems in place which enable it to assess whether the management of offenders subject to supervision in the community is being achieved efficiently, effectively and economically.

9 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, Sections 66(c), 93(g), 103(g) and 114(i). Authorised corrective services officer as defined in Section 4(a) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992.

10 Auditor-General Report to Parliament No. 1 for 2011 | Audit outline

1.3 Audit scope

1.3.1 Entities subject to audit The audit focus was the Department of Community Safety, with regard to the management of adult offenders who are subject to supervision in the community. Within the department the Queensland Corrective Services Probation and Parole Directorate was the unit with the prime responsibility in this area (refer to Figure 1A, Section 1.1).

A sample was selected of four of the eight Queensland Corrective Services regions and included the range of offender demographics and risk profiles managed by the Probation and Parole Directorate. The sample was selected based on the audit team’s research and subsequent consultation with Queensland Corrective Services.

The audit consisted of the Probation and Parole District and Regional Offices at Cairns, Cooktown, Gladstone, Brisbane South, and Southport. In addition, the audit included the High Risk Offender Management Unit; Queensland Corrective Services Academy; the Internal Audit Branch; Offender Intervention Services; Governance, Compliance and Risk Unit; the People, Resourcing, Innovation, Supervision, Management (PRISM) Project; Program Management Branch; Indigenous Coordination Unit; Judicial Liaison Unit; Operational Support Services; ‘Throughcare’ and External Services; Legal and Information Rights Unit; and the Performance Evaluation Unit.

1.3.2 Exclusions from audit scope The audit did not focus on:

• The development and evaluation of community based programs (although the audit did examine whether Queensland Corrective Services have performance management systems in place to evaluate the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of community based programs).

• Juvenile offenders.

• Adult offenders on involuntary psychiatric orders and/or guardianship orders.

• Adult offenders on bail orders, in custody or on periodic detention orders (weekend detention).

Auditor-General Report to Parliament No. 1 for 2011 | Probation and parole accountability 11

2 | Probation and parole accountability

Summary

Background To be accountable, all government departments should regularly report to Parliament and other stakeholders against departmental objectives. This includes internal reporting and monitoring of agency systems to provide departmental management information on whether objectives are being achieved effectively, efficiently and economically.

It was expected the Department of Community Safety would have systems to report on its role in managing offenders in the community against its relevant stated objectives and provide adequate information to manage this role.

Key findings • A Probation and Parole Governance and Accountability Framework and performance review

system is in place.

• Sound systems of internal monitoring are in place.

• The introduction of regional performance meetings is improving accountability.

• Some internally delivered intervention programs have not been evaluated and reported.

• The key performance measures in public reporting documents of the Annual Report, the Service Delivery Statement and the Report on Government Services are not aligned.

• More meaningful performance measures are required.

• There is no evaluation of the effectiveness of external intervention programs.

12 Auditor-General Report to Parliament No. 1 for 2011 | Probation and parole accountability

2.1 Accountability – overview The department has measures to report publicly on their management of offenders in the community. The measures are reported in the Annual Report, the Service Delivery Statement and the Report on Government Services. The department also has systems in place for the internal assessment and reporting of performance at various levels. Table 2A details the performance measures reported externally.

Table 2A – Comparison of measures reported externally

Performance measure Annual Report 2009-10

Service Delivery

Statement 2010-11

Report on Government

Services 2010

Number of offenders on supervision orders

Number of offenders on reparation orders

Percentage of successfully completed supervision orders

Percentage of successfully completed reparation orders

Cost of supervision per offender per day

Financial value of community service work performed

Average daily distinct persons serving orders

Number of courts to which advisory services delivered

Completion of offender management plan reviews (OMPRs)

Number of District Offices

Number of Reporting Centres

Offenders returning to community corrections

Offenders returning to Corrective Services

Community corrections offender-to-staff ratio

Offender population statistics


2.2 Accountability systems

2.2.1 Internal reporting and performance monitoring The current system of internal reporting and performance management provides a sound base to manage community supervision and is guided by the Probation and Parole Directorate’s Governance and Accountability Framework (the Framework). This Framework is supported by systems that require all levels of the Probation and Parole Directorate to monitor performance. These systems include performance measure reviews, audit reviews, self assessments and scheduled regional reviews. The system requires that data to inform this monitoring is provided through standardised weekly and monthly reports and the Probation and Parole corporate scorecard system. However, the Framework currently has no references to the Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia - revised 2004 (the Guidelines), which have been adopted by Queensland Corrective Services. At the time of audit, the Probation and Parole Directorate was undertaking a revision of the Governance and Accountability Framework, early drafts of which include references to the Guidelines.

Regional performance review meetings have been progressively implemented in the Probation and Parole Directorate since 2009. These reviews reflect the more robust performance system reviews emerging in other Queensland Government departments and incorporate the principles underpinning good performance measures. These principles are detailed in the Queensland Audit Office Better Practice Guide on Performance Reviews 2010. The Directorate’s system requires regional managers to oversee all of their operations based on documented evidence and to be able to answer questions about performance in meetings with executive management. Already many action items and special focus reviews have resulted from these meetings. For example, a special focus review about managing female offenders has been undertaken. At the time of audit, initial regional performance reviews had occurred in all but one region.

A key aspect of many offenders’ community supervision is the requirement to participate in relevant intervention programs. The accountability and management of intervention programs is guided by the Australian Offender Programs Standards – October 2005 and the Queensland Corrective Services’ Offender Intervention Programs Evaluation Framework. To account for the effectiveness of intervention programs the Probation and Parole Directorate has commenced an evaluation process of selected program groups. These evaluation processes are further detailed in Section 5.3. Only a limited number of intervention programs have been evaluated and the results were reported to management. Information available to assess the Directorate’s intervention program effectiveness includes:

• Key Directorate sex offender programs – external evaluations reported only to Directorate Executive.

• Key Directorate general offender programs – preliminary evaluations reported internally.

• Key Directorate Indigenous programs – evaluations not commenced.

• External developed programs delivered within the Directorate – evaluations not commenced.

• Programs developed and delivered by external agencies – evaluations not planned.


The Australian Institute of Criminology report, Integrated responses to domestic violence: Legally mandated intervention programs for male perpetrators, provides support for the significant investment in program evaluation initiatives. It also advocates that there should be:

“…a commitment to development of evaluation methodologies that take into account of [sic] all aspects of integrated service delivery, including the success of attempts by program providers to collaborate with the police, judiciary, corrections, victims groups, child protection agencies and other stakeholders...” 10

2.2.2 Public reporting Public reporting of the Probation and Parole Directorate’s performance is principally through the Department of Community Safety Annual Report and the Service Delivery Statement. The Probation and Parole Directorate also provides input to the Report on Government Services.

Key community supervision measures externally reported include the number and type of orders, the percentage of male, female and Indigenous offenders, the percentage of orders successfully completed and the daily cost of supervision per offender.

The department’s Annual Report is a key accountability document and should provide a full and complete picture of agency performance to Parliament and the wider community. The Annual Report complements the Service Delivery Statement, which provides budgeted financial and non financial information for the purpose of enabling the government to produce the annual State Budget. As complementary documents it is expected that key, though not necessarily all, performance information would be aligned in these documents.

The annual Review of Government Service Provision is published as the Report on Government Services. This review is intended to:

• Enable ongoing comparisons of the performance of government services across Australia.

• Report on government service provision reforms that governments have implemented or that are under consideration for the purpose of informing parliaments, governments, service providers and the clients of services (the wider community) about overall performance and reforms in service provision to promote ongoing performance improvement.11

The Report on Government Services is ‘…the key tool to measure and report on the productive efficiency and cost effectiveness of government services…’ 12 It includes a wide range of performance measures for all Australian States and Territories allowing comparisons between these jurisdictions. Examples of such comparisons are shown in Tables 2B, 2C and 2D. These comparisons enable Queensland to benchmark its performance against other jurisdictions and identify favourable areas and areas for improvement.

10 Australian Institute of Criminology report, Integrated responses to domestic violence: Legally mandated intervention programs for male perpetrators, December 2010, page 7. 11 Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision, Report on Government Services 2010, Productivity Commission, Canberra. 12 Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision, Report on Government Services 2010, Productivity Commission, Canberra, page iii.


Table 2B – 2008-09 Community corrections net operating expenditure (per offender per day)

Jurisdiction ($)

Queensland 9.51

South Australia 11.84

New South Wales 20.23

Australian Capital Territory 11.41

Tasmania 12.00

Western Australia 29.78

Northern Territory 30.40

Victoria 18.65

Australian Average 17.00

Source: Report of Government Services 2010.

Table 2C – 2008-09 Community corrections offender to staff ratio (per offender per day)

Jurisdiction Offender to all staff Offender to operational staff

Queensland 23.7 29.1

South Australia 23.4 34.8

New South Wales 18.3 23.0

Australian Capital Territory 25.0 44.5

Tasmania 21.0 29.0

Western Australia 12.8 16.6

Northern Territory 12.2 16.2

Victoria 14.6 18.4

Australian Average 18.4 23.7



Table 2D – 2008-09 Offenders discharged from community corrections orders during2006-07 who returned with a new correctional sanction within two years (per cent)

Jurisdiction Offenders returning to community corrections

Offenders returning to corrective services (c)

Queensland 14.1 25.0

South Australia (a) 15.2 22.3

New South Wales 18.6 27.8

Australian Capital Territory (b) NA NA

Tasmania 14.1 20.1

Western Australia 24.1 41.1

Northern Territory 15.2 27.4

Victoria 14.1 20.1

Australian Average 17.8 27.8


(a) Figures for South Australia include breaches of home detention component. This group has a higher rate of return than home detainees on a sentenced order. In the majority of cases, this is for a minor breach.

(b) ACT did not report on either indicator for this Report.

(c) Includes a prison sentence or a community corrections order.

(NA) Not Available.

Whilst the full range of performance measures reported in Report on Government Services may not be expected in the Annual Report and the Service Delivery Statement, it would be expected that key performance information would align in all three documents, especially given their similarity in purpose and reporting audience. In particular, performance measures relating to reoffending would be expected in the Annual Report and Service Delivery Statement given that a departmental objective is “to ensure a safer Queensland by enforcing the orders of the court and breaking the cycle of reoffending.” 13 As noted in Table 2A the Report on Government Services reports two reoffending measures which are not reported in either the Annual Report nor the Service Delivery Statement 2010-11. Where possible the performance measures reported in these documents should align for such key measures.

Queensland Corrective Services have started a review to identify opportunities to provide greater alignment of key performance measures in these documents.

There is limited public information available on the effectiveness of intervention programs delivered to offenders in the community. The department reports on the number of intervention program completions, without distinguishing between those completed in custody and those under community supervision. Furthermore, the mere completion of intervention programs does not provide a measure of program effectiveness. Comparisons of reoffending rates against intervention program completions may provide a greater indication of effectiveness.

13 Department of Community Safety, Service Delivery Statement, 2010-11.


For example, the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC), conducted a study of the ‘Men’s Domestic Violence Program’ which is a joint program between the Gold Coast Probation and Parole region and the Gold Coast Domestic Violence Service. The AIC reported that of the 38 men involved in the program between 2006 and 2009, 20 completed the program and seven of the 20 reoffended within 12 months of completion.14

In addition to comparisons with reoffending rates, further comparisons with contravention rates may also assist. In regard to measures reported in the Report of Government Services, a national steering committee of all corrective service departments in Australia is tasked to improve data quality of existing performance indicators and develop new indicators.

2.3 Accountability – recommendations It is recommended the Department of Community Safety:

1 Align public reporting to ensure greater consistency of key performance measures between the Service Delivery Statement, Annual Report and the performance information provided for the Report on Government Services.

14 Australian Institute of Criminology report, Integrated responses to domestic violence: Legally mandated intervention programs for male perpetrators, December 2010, page 7.


Auditor-General Report to Parliament No. 1 for 2011 | Probation and parole offender management 19

3 | Probation and parole

offender management

Summary

Background The management of offenders in the community requires the assessment, balancing and management of the needs and rights of offenders against the potential security risks to the community and the risk of reoffending.15

It was expected that Queensland Corrective Services would have an offender management system in place to identify and manage individual offender risks and needs against community safety, in accordance with appropriate legislation and standards.

Key findings • There is a substantial system in place to identify and manage the risks and needs of offenders

against the needs and safety of the community.

• Direct references to relevant sections of the Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia – revised 2004, would enhance Queensland Corrective Services policies and procedures.

• There is a lack of evaluation of individual offender management effectiveness.

• There is no process in place for Queensland Corrective Services to assess the effectiveness of transitional support provided to offenders regarding reoffending.

• The offender management system lacks effective coordination between Custodial Operations and the Probation and Parole Directorate. It does not provide for the seamless transition of prisoners into community supervision.

• Some offenders in remote communities experience difficulties in returning home after release from prison.

• There is the potential to develop greater consistency in case load and legislative knowledge between High Risk Offender Management Unit and Regional Case Managers.

15 Australian Institute of Criminology, Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia, revised 2004.

20 Auditor-General Report to Parliament No. 1 for 2011 | Probation and parole offender management

3.1 Offender management – overview Prisoner numbers in Queensland increased by 142 per cent in the decade leading up to 2004,16 including a 116 per cent increase between 1992-93 to 1997-9817 (refer to Figure 3A). In 2004 Queensland Corrective Services commenced the ‘Managing Growth in Prisoner Numbers Project.’ As a result, a project to establish a new Probation and Parole Service led to a new model of Probation and Parole being piloted in four District Offices in South East Queensland in July 2006. A year later the new model of Probation and Parole was implemented across the State.18 This model is the basis of the current system of managing offenders subject to community supervision that exists in Queensland. Since the introduction of the current Probation and Parole model, Queensland Corrective Services reports experiencing one of the smallest growth rates in prisoner numbers of any of the Australian jurisdictions.19 They also attribute the small increase in prisoner rates to changes in the Corrective Services Act 2006, including the introduction of Court Ordered Parole. Correspondingly, over the past five years Queensland has experienced the highest growth in probation and parole offender numbers in Australia.20 Table 3B highlights the growth in probation and parole offenders between 2004-05 to 2008-09 for all jurisdictions. Figures 3C and 3D provide a comparison of the growth in prisoner and offender numbers managed by Custodial Operations and Probation and Parole Directorate, since January 2005.

Figure 3A – Prisoners actual numbers and forecasts

16 Queensland Corrective Services, PRISM Program, Version 3.1.1, February 2010, page 5. 17 Criminal Justice Commission, Prisoner Numbers on Queensland: An examination of Population Trends in Queensland’s Correctional Institutions, March, 2000. 18 Queensland Corrective Services, Probation and Parole – The guide to the new model for Probation and Parole. 19 Queensland Corrective Services, PRISM Program, Version 3.1.1, February 2010, page 7. 20 Queensland Corrective Services, PRISM Program, Version 3.1.1, February 2010, page 7.


Table 3B – Probation and parole growth average number of offenders (2004-05 to 2008-09)

Jurisdiction 2004-05 2008-09 Offender Growth

Queensland 11550 14467 2917

South Australia 6225 6791 566

New South Wales 17676 18124 448

Australian Capital Territory 1236 1601 365

Tasmania 1026 1177 151

Western Australia 5499 5625 126

Northern Territory 1077 1085 8

Victoria 8218 8103 -115

Source: Queensland Corrective Services based on Report of Government Services 2005 to 2010 data.

Figure 3C – Per cent growth – Prisoners and probation and parole offenders at last day of month January 2005 to June 2010

Source: Queensland Corrective Services.


Figure 3D – Number of prisoners and probation and parole offenders at last day of month January 2005 to January 2010

The role of the Probation and Parole Directorate is to break the cycle of reoffending, enforce court and parole board orders and to improve community safety and confidence.21 In support of this role the system in place for managing offenders in the community includes:

• a regulatory framework

• policies and procedures covering all aspects of offender management

• client and program management information systems

• defined staff roles that align with the specific phases of the offender management process (Refer to Section 6.5 for a description of staff roles).

21 Department of Community Safety, Delivering Justice – Improving Corrections, Queensland Corrective Services Framework for Reform, 2010-2014.


3.2 Offender management – systems in place Offenders come under the management of Probation and Parole Directorate staff as a result of being placed under any one or more of the following court or Parole Board orders:

• Parole (granted by Parole Board)

• Court Ordered Parole

• Probation Orders

• Intensive Corrections Orders

• Prison/Probation Orders

• Community Service Orders

• Intensive Drug Rehabilitation Orders

• Supervision Orders pursuant to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003

• Fine Option Orders.

Detailed descriptions of the various orders can be found at Section 6.6 of this report.

Offenders undergo induction and assessment processes which are conducted by specialist Assessment Officers. Details of the offender and supervision order are recorded on the Integrated Offender Management System (IOMS) database. During this induction the offender is assessed for the risk of self harm or suicide and ‘Risk of Reoffending’ (RoR). In addition, an ‘Immediate Risks Needs Assessment’ is conducted.

An offender management plan, specific to the individual offender, is developed to address the identified risk, needs and order conditions applicable to the offender. This offender management plan details the degree of supervision and surveillance, as well as various intervention strategies, that will be applied to the offender.

The majority of offenders are supervised under one of two streams of offender management, being the ‘reporting’ stream for low risk offenders and the ‘case management’ stream for high risk and sex offenders (refer to Section 6.4). All other offenders are allocated to the ‘compliance (reparation)’ stream, which largely consists of offenders performing community work. As of May 2010 the statewide breakdown of offender management was:

• Reporting stream (low risk) 9,574 offenders

• Case management stream (high risk) 3,619 offenders

• Compliance stream (reparation) 3,506 offenders.22

Responsibility for managing the offender then passes to a Reporting Officer, Case Manager or Compliance Officer, depending on which stream of management the offender has been allocated. Reporting Officers and Case Managers are responsible for the ongoing management of offenders and ensuring that intervention strategies are implemented and reviewed. Designated Surveillance Officers assist in ensuring offenders comply with the terms of their orders by conducting activities such as breath and urine testing, checking high risk offenders adhere to curfews and verifying offenders’ personal details.

22 Data provided by Queensland Corrective Services’ Probation and Parole Directorate, July 2010.


There are detailed procedures to guide staff in circumstances where an offender fails to comply with conditions of their order or offender management plan. Dependent on the nature of the contravention, offenders are not always brought before the court. Compliance Officers are responsible for ensuring contraventions of orders are brought before the court where deemed necessary and that warrants are issued for those offenders who abscond from supervision. Compliance Officers are also responsible for managing offenders under community service orders by allocating them to appropriate community service programs and monitoring their attendance and participation.

In smaller district offices, due to resourcing issues, staff may perform dual roles within the offender management system. For example, in some cases one staff member performs the dual roles of Reporting and Compliance Officer, or Assessment Officer and Case Manager. The current Probation and Parole offender management system is flexible enough to accommodate the need for dual roles in these areas. The same policies and procedures generally apply with some allowances where needed, particularly regarding timeframes in remote areas.

The policies and procedures in place to support this system are comprehensive but largely compliance focused. The 41 procedures are currently being reviewed with a view to transitioning from a high compliance focus to 13 guidelines which are intended to provide a more flexible offender management system. As these guidelines were still being developed at the time of audit, audit was not able to assess their likely effectiveness and efficiency.

The current policies and procedures are based on the Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia-revised 2004 (the Guidelines) and the ‘what works’ principles, which are consistent with the Guidelines. While these are non-binding guidelines they have been endorsed by all Australian States and Territories, including Queensland, and represent the nationally accepted best practice for corrections.

The ‘what works’ principles are drawn from a body of research literature. These principles are:

• The risk principle: matching program intensity to an offender’s risk of reoffending, i.e. reserve highly intensive programs for high risk offenders and provide minimal services to low risk offenders.

• The need principle: focusing intervention on those factors directly related to offending behaviour, i.e. criminogenic needs, starting with intrinsic needs.

• The responsivity principle: delivering interventions in a manner that matches the individual learning styles and needs of offenders.

• Program integrity: ensuring intervention programs are delivered as they were intended.


3.3 Offender management standards While Queensland Corrective Services policies and procedures are consistent with the Guidelines, there are no references to the specific standard from which they are derived. Although the Guidelines are available on the departmental internet and intranet sites, staff exhibited a general lack of awareness and knowledge regarding these guidelines. As a consequence some Probation and Parole staff have little or no knowledge about the source of standards for offender management and whether they were based on best practice standards. Some Probation and Parole staff expressed a professional desire to better understand the basis of the organisation’s practices.

Queensland Corrective Services is currently in the process of finalising an internal set of standards to inform the Probation and Parole Directorate’s operational policies and procedures. These standards are being developed to comply with and include references to the Guidelines. In addition, reference to the Guidelines has been included in the department’s updated draft of the Governance and Accountability Framework.

3.4 Effectiveness of individual offendermanagement

The effectiveness of individual offender management is measured through a system of regular case reviews and conferences with peers, supervisors and managers. There are no standard requirements regarding the timing and process for conducting these reviews and as a result there is some variance between district offices. These reviews consider changes in the offender’s responsiveness and compliance with intervention strategies. This is ascertained through scheduled reporting interviews conducted with offenders, as well as participation and completion of any directed programs and intervention strategies. Where necessary this may result in changes to the offender management plan and intervention strategies applied.

The main measures of offender management effectiveness are the number of contraventions and number of successful order completions. While the ability of an offender to complete an order can be indicative of effective offender management, it can equally be indicative of a failure to detect contraventions. In cases where one or a number of contraventions by the offender are detected, the offender may, in some circumstances, be permitted to complete the order without being brought before the court. In addition, a high number of contraventions can suggest effective compliance monitoring systems but can also indicate ineffective intervention strategies. Therefore, while assessments of order completions and contraventions provide some measure of effectiveness the value of such assessments is limited.

Where an offender completes an order, there is no formal finalisation or exit assessment conducted with the offender. As such, no discussion and evaluation is conducted with each offender regarding which intervention and management strategies were effective and which were not.


The management of offenders is conducted on the basis of an offender ‘episode’ rather than on the basis of each offender order. A continuous period of offender supervision is considered to be one episode, regardless of whether the offender is under one or multiple orders. A ‘Risk of Reoffending’ (RoR) assessment, which includes offending history, is conducted as part of the assessment process at the commencement of each episode. This RoR assessment is used as the basis for the level of offender management applied, i.e. Reporting or Case Management stream. The RoR assessment is based on episodes rather than orders. Any further orders the offender may be placed on as a result of reoffending during the supervision episode, do not result in a further RoR assessment being conducted. As a result, the potential increased risk of reoffending is not acknowledged in the management of the offender. This can result in the offender continuing to be managed in the low risk Reporting stream, rather than the more intensive Case Management stream. The People, Resourcing, Innovation, Supervision, Management (PRISM) program is intended, in part, to address this by requiring a RoR assessment to be conducted for each subsequent court order rather than each episode. Case Study 3E details the PRISM program.

Case study 3E

PRISM program People, Resourcing, Innovation, Supervision, Management

In 2004, Queensland Corrective Services commenced a three year strategic initiative to manage prisoner growth numbers (increase of 142 per cent in the decade leading up to 2004).23 This initiative led to changes to the Corrective Services Act 2006, including Court Ordered Parole and a new Probation and Parole model. The initiative targeted low risk, short sentence offenders, diverting them to community supervision instead of a custodial sentence. The Probation and Parole Directorate identified workplace challenges brought about by the growth of offender numbers since the commencement of the current Probation and Parole model (refer to Table 3B and Figures 3C and 3D). These challenges were identified as: human resource issues; unscheduled absences; recruitment; separations; internal movements; and professional officer qualifications. The PRISM program commenced in 2009 and is a five year business improvement strategy to address issues such as workforce planning and flexibility, offender case management, offender risk management and resource allocation. The program proposes a new resource model to quantify pressure points and allow rapid management response to changes in service demand. Up to 75 per cent of offenders are reporting to Probation and Parole staff either weekly or fortnightly. This level of supervision requires more staff as the number of offenders increase. Queensland has the highest offender to staff ratio and the lowest cost service in Australia (refer to Tables 2B and 2C). PRISM is investigating a reduction to the supervision of low risk offenders, augmented by the use of technology such as biometric reporting (refer to Section 6.9). The Probation and Parole Directorate anticipate this may allow for a redistribution of resources toward the management of high risk offenders. The program acknowledges the potential risk of reducing supervision to low risk offenders. It is considered that biometric reporting could provide efficiencies in the offender reporting stream, where the majority of offenders are allocated (refer to Section 3.2), as well as improve resources directed at the management of high risk offenders.

Source: Queensland Corrective Services, People, Resources, Innovation, Supervision, Management (PRISM) Initiative, February 2010.

23 Queensland Corrective Services, PRISM Program, Version 3.1.1, February 2010, page 5.


Based largely on the ‘what works’ research literature, Queensland Corrective Services identifies accommodation, employment, relationship support, substance abuse, gambling, domestic violence and special order conditions as significant ‘dynamic risk factors’ which influence reoffending. The research suggests that addressing these dynamic risk factors can have a significant influence on rehabilitation and reoffending rates. At present Queensland Corrective Services have no system in place for evaluating the effectiveness of the offender management process in identifying and addressing these dynamic risk factors. A further intention of the PRISM program is to establish a process for staff to assess these dynamic risk factors during every offender visit.

3.5 ‘Throughcare’ and transitions ‘Throughcare’ is the co-ordinated and integrated approach to the management of offenders from their first point of contact with the agency to their successful re-integration into the community.Its focus is on addressing offender needs across many areas, including health and medical, accommodation, relationships, addictions and criminogenic needs. The principle of throughcare features prominently in the ‘what works’ research literature as accepted best practice both nationally and internationally.

Queensland Corrective Services has a system in place to manage offenders from their first point of contact with the agency to their reintegration into the community. This system is supported by the Throughcare Strategic Plan 2008-12 and incorporates the Integrated Transitional Support Model of three specific programs:

• The Transition Release Preparation Program – delivered to high risk offenders before they are released from prison.

• Offender Integration Support Service – delivered in prison to high risk offenders.

• Offender Reintegration Support Services – contracted to non government agencies that provide basic support to offenders such as finding accommodation and arranging Centrelink services. Participation in this service is not mandatory for parole and no referrals are made to this service.

The effective and efficient transition of prisoners to the community is an important aspect of throughcare and has been identified as a potentially risky period for offenders. As such the Guidelines recommend that where possible, offender management systems should be consistent across Custodial Operations and Probation and Parole Directorate to ensure a ‘relatively seamless’ transition.24

The transitions process is managed by Custodial Operations within Queensland Corrective Services, but has a significant impact on the operations of the Probation and Parole Directorate. Audit noted a lack of formalised procedures or protocols between Custodial Operations and the Probation and Parole Directorate to ensure effective communication and coordination of offender transition and support services. Rather than providing a ‘seamless’ transition, the Custodial Operations and the Probation and Parole Directorate tend to operate as distinct and separate units with limited cooperation. This results in a disconnect between these two units of Queensland Corrective Services and impacts on the flow of information. For example, offender transition plans, completed as a hardcopy document by the prisoner prior to transitioning from prison, are not readily accessible on the Integrated Offender Management System (IOMS) database by Probation and Parole Officers. Probation and Parole staff expressed difficulty in obtaining these plans from Custodial Operations. 24 Australian Institute of Criminology, Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia – revised 2004, Section 3.2.


Furthermore, some offenders from remote communities experience difficulties in returning home after release from prison. This can lead to the offender failing to report to Probation and Parole Officers, being without accommodation, engaging in substance abuse, and/or reoffending. Queensland Corrective Services is providing additional funding to expand the Offender Reintegration Support Service in North and Far North Queensland regions. Following a public tender process, new contracted non-government organisations commenced delivery of a revised and extended Offender Reintegration Support Service in January 2011. Given that these changes occurred subsequent to the audit period, audit was not able to assess the effectiveness, efficiency or economy of this revised service within the Probation and Parole context.

Until recently the Integrated Transitional Support Model has not been fully resourced in all custodial centres. As a result, the programs have tended to be delivered in an ad hoc manner. Dedicated Transitions Coordinators have been in place since mid 2010. These Transitions Coordinators represent a step toward addressing some of the disconnect issues between Custodial Operations and the Probation and Parole Directorate. There is however, a need to ensure that appropriate and accessible formalised procedures are in place to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of these coordinators. Given that these are recent appointments, the effect of Transitions Coordinators have yet to be evaluated. Audit was not able to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of this program within the Probation and Parole context. In addition, there are regional transitional initiatives, such as the Ozcare supported parole program, which are intended to provide further support and management of offenders under parole orders. Case Study 3F provides details of the Ozcare supported parole program.


Case study 3F

Transitions initiative Ozcare partnership

The Probation and Parole Directorate has implemented a supported parole program as a partnership between the Brisbane South District Office with Ozcare. This supported parole program is a 'throughcare' initiative to assist certain parolees transition from custody. This program has recently been granted recurrent funding and the current contract for the Ozcare Supported Parole Program is funded by Queensland Corrective Services. The offenders who are accommodated under the Ozcare program are high risk offenders (in 2009, 62 per cent were sex offenders, 18 per cent convicted of murder or serious violent offences and 20 per cent convicted of other offences). The program involves the development of a Support and Action Plan for each offender with a view to assisting offenders with counselling, familiarisation (e.g. regarding public transport), developing independent living skills, job skills, finding permanent/stable accommodation, banking, budgeting, social skills, education and training. Offenders released into the Ozcare Supported Parole Program often have more stringent conditions attached to their parole and because of this and their high risk status, often require a greater level of case management. In response to the high demands of managing these high risk offenders, the Brisbane South District Office has appointed two of their experienced Case Managers who are designated full time to the management of the offenders in the Ozcare Program. In addition, Ozcare was approved by Queensland Corrective Services as a probation and parole reporting centre to enable targeted drug and alcohol testing to occur after business hours. An evaluation by the Probation and Parole Directorate of the trial period identified the benefits of this program as:

Consistency in case management Improved ability for Probation and Parole staff to conduct targeted urinalysis and breath testing Improved information and intelligence gathering Enhanced risk management and increased community safety Seventy per cent successful order completion rate and reintegration into the community.

The Probation and Parole Directorate is considering expanding this model into other regions.

Source: Queensland Corrective Services, Probation and Parole Directorate, 27 April 2010 and 28 July 2010.

There are currently no processes in place for Queensland Corrective Services to assess the effectiveness of transitional support regarding reoffending. The focus of transitional support is to assist reintegration of offenders into the community. The impact of these support programs on reducing rates of reoffending is not currently measured. Queensland Corrective Services nevertheless has identified the need to capture data on the impact of reoffending and are currently developing an evaluation process.

The need for greater cohesion between Probation and Parole and Prison Operations was identified in a review of Community Corrections in Tasmania. This review recommended consideration be given there to the development of a Directorate of Corrections to consolidate the central policy level functions across Community Corrections and the Tasmanian Prisons Service. This recommendation was intended to, among other potential benefits, “ensure that professionals working with offenders, either in custody or in the community, have the same training and development opportunities and the same understanding and professional knowledge about working with offenders.” 25 In addition, this review identified potential benefits of increased opportunities for staff career progression and pathways across Community Corrections and the Prison Service.

25 Tasmania Department of Justice, Review of Tasmania Community Corrections, December 2008, page 37.


3.6 High Risk Offender Management Unit Offenders released from prison and subject to an order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 are managed by the High Risk Offender Management Unit (HROMU). These offenders have completed their sentence and are no longer prisoners, but remain under the supervision of Queensland Corrective Services due to an order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003. The duration of the supervision is dependent on the terms of the order, which currently range between 2 and 20 years.

The decision to release an offender to supervision is guided by psychiatric evidence with all offenders being assessed by two court-appointed psychiatrists to determine risk, length of supervision and appropriate supervision strategies. An induction occurs either pre-release, or in some cases immediately upon release. Offenders are transported by Surveillance Officers on release to accommodation that has been assessed as suitable in the community or contingency accommodation established on prison reserves. Where applicable, offenders may be subject to electronic monitoring and curfew requirements, with curfews ranging from night-time through to 24 hours or specific curfews around key timings (e.g. school hours). All offenders are allocated to a Case Manager in accordance with Queensland Corrective Services procedures and directives. At the time of audit there were 42 offenders being supervised within the greater Brisbane area by the HROMU and 15 offenders managed across regional Queensland. HROMU provides support and guidance to Regional Case Managers to ensure adequate management of all high risk sexual offenders. These offenders may be subject to surveillance and are required to report regularly to their Case Manager.

The audit identified inconsistent levels of legislative knowledge and case load between HROMU and Regional Case Managers with regard to the management of offenders subject to DangerousPrisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 orders. A HROMU Case Manager is considered to have a full case load when managing four offenders. A Regional Case Manager may be allocated the management of one or two offenders subject to an order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003. Regional Case Managers also tend to carry a workload of other offenders, typically totalling 20 to 30 offenders. In addition, the Regional Case Manager has usually received less training with regard to the requirements of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, and therefore is heavily reliant on advice and guidance from HROMU.

3.7 Offender management – recommendations It is recommended the Department of Community Safety:

2 Establish comprehensive processes and measures to evaluate the effectiveness of offender management, specifically regarding the aims of breaking the cycle of reoffending and improving community safety and confidence.

3 Establish processes to develop greater consistency in case load and legislative knowledge between the High Risk Offender Management Unit and Regional Case Managers.

4 Establish processes to improve coordination of services between Custodial Operations and the Probation and Parole Directorate, including the evaluation of the effectiveness of Transitional Coordinators.

Auditor-General Report to Parliament No. 1 for 2011 | Probation and parole workforce 31

4 | Probation and parole workforce

Summary

Background Probation and Parole officers should possess skills and qualifications relevant to their particular roles in managing offenders.

The audit expected to find systems in place to ensure staff are adequately trained in legislation, policies and procedures specific to their roles and responsibilities.

Key findings • All Reporting Officers and Case Managers are required to have relevant tertiary qualifications.

• A program to improve the mix of staff skills and qualifications has commenced.

• The Reporting Officer Development Program is compulsory training for all new Reporting Officers however, there are delays in providing this training for new Reporting Officers, sometimes up to 12 months after commencement.

• There is no training provided for some specific roles, such as Compliance Officers.

• There is no mandated formal training for positions above Reporting Officer.

• Some staff displayed limited knowledge of key legislation relevant to their roles.

32 Auditor-General Report to Parliament No. 1 for 2011 | Probation and parole workforce

4.1 Workforce – overview The community expectations of rehabilitating offenders in the community is dependent on the professionalism and capacity of staff who work in the Probation and Parole Directorate. Supervision of offenders in the community can be at Probation and Parole offices, in the community or in the offender’s home. Supervision may include one on one meetings, drug and alcohol testing, home supervision and surveillance and electronic monitoring. Staff working with offenders need to be flexible and use a range of supervision methods. They must manage high and low risk offenders while maintaining and understanding the cultural and social values and diversity of offenders.

At the request of the courts Probation and Parole staff provide presentence reports and assessments about the ability of offenders to comply with various orders. Compliance officers also prepare court briefs when orders are contravened. Therefore, Probation and Parole Directorate staff need to have an adequate understanding of the relevant legislation.

4.2 Workforce – systems in place

4.2.1 Qualified staff There is a system in place to induct all new staff into the Probation and Parole Directorate. All new staff undertake an online induction process that must be completed within a week of commencement. Supervisors manage the process and provide on the job training during the induction. The process is documented and retained on the employee file. There is also a process for a yearly review in the form of Achievement Development Plans for all staff.

Reporting Officers and Case Managers, who have contact with offenders, are required to have tertiary qualifications, usually in the human services and behavioural science fields. This contrasts with the lack of requirement for formal qualifications for other staff, such as Compliance and Surveillance Officers. The roles and responsibilities of these staff are clearly outlined in job descriptions. The Probation and Parole Directorate is in the process of reviewing the mandatory requirement for tertiary qualifications as part of the PRISM program (Refer to Case Study 3E, Section 3.4).

4.2.2 Staff training Queensland Corrective Services maintains a training academy based at the Wacol Correctional Precinct. The Academy is a registered training organisation and provides compulsory initial training for Custodial Operations and Probation and Parole Directorate officers. The Academy also provides non-compulsory training for supervisors and managers to Diploma and Associate Diploma level.

The Queensland Corrective Services Training Academy has a 2010-11 training budget of $384,000 for the 590 Probation and Parole Directorate full time equivalent staff.26 In comparison, Custodial Operations has a 2010-11 training budget of $2.2 million for 1743 full time equivalent staff.27 The number of offenders managed by the Probation and Parole Directorate is 14,467 26 Information provided by Queensland Corrective Services’ Probation and Parole Directorate, July 2010 and is based on January 2010 figures. 27 Department of Community Safety Annual Report 2009-10, page 137.


compared with 5,629 prisoners managed by Custodial Operations.28 The disparity in training budget and staff to offender/prisoner ratios in part reflects the differing skill and functions required by Custodial and Probation and Parole staff.

Figure 4A – Comparison of Custodial Operations, Probation and Parole staff and offender percentages

Figure 4B – Comparison of Custodial Operations and Probation and Parole training budgets

28 Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision, Report on Government Services 2010, Productivity Commission, Canberra, Table 8A.3.

0

500,000

1000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

Custodial Operations training budgetCustodial Operations training budget

Probation and Parole training budgetProbation and Parole training budget

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80Custodial Operations prisonersCustodial Operations prisoners

Probation and Parole offendersProbation and Parole offenders

Custodial Operations staffCustodial Operations staff

Probation and Parole staffProbation and Parole staff


4.3 Staff mix Section 6.7 of the Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia – revised 2004 (the Guidelines) states:

“…The composition of the workforce should provide a gender and ethnicity mix that reflects the diversity of the community in which services are delivered…”

Queensland Corrective Services has identified workforce challenges as consisting of:

• Human resource issues

• Unscheduled absences

• Recruitment

• Separations

• Internal movements

• Professional officer qualifications (see Case Study 3E, Section 3.4).

The separation rate for the Probation and Parole Directorate averages 9.3 per cent. In comparison the Queensland Public Service average for separations is 5.6 per cent, although the department does not consider the separation rate to be excessive and note that outside the Queensland Public Sector, industries such as Defence, view 10 per cent as a healthy separation rate.29 The majority of Probation and Parole separations are in the critical positions of Reporting Officer and Case Manager. The Reporting Officer position is the most difficult position to recruit into and requires lead times for recruitment and training before competency levels to manage a full case load are reached.

The Probation and Parole Directorate identifies its greatest workforce challenge as being the level of internal movement. For the 2008-09 financial year 62 per cent of the 1438 staff movements recorded for the Probation and Parole Directorate involved staff acting in another position. This was identified as having a direct impact on the continuity of offender supervision and was also raised by staff during interviews with audit.30

The current workforce is predominantly female (74.8 per cent) while the 2010 Report on Government Services shows the offender profile to be predominantly male (79.9 per cent). The high female workforce in part reflects the gender mix of people undertaking the types of qualifications in the preferred fields. Staff and offender profiles are displayed in Table 4C.

As at January 2010 there are more female staff under the age of thirty than the total of male staff in the Directorate’s workforce (Table 4C provides actual staff numbers). Table 4D provides a comparison of the total number of Probation and Parole Directorate staff and Queensland Public Sector staff by age. The percentage of staff under age 30 in Probation and Parole Directorate is significantly greater than Queensland Public Sector staff for the same age group. The selection of regional Case Managers for offenders under Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 orders is at times constrained by the lack of male staff members and the incompatibility of certain offenders to be managed by female staff.

29 Queensland Corrective Services, PRISM Program, Version 3.1.1, February 2010, page 6. 30 Queensland Corrective Services, PRISM Program, Version 3.1.1, February 2010, page 6.


Table 4C – Probation and Parole Directorate staff mix by gender

Source: Queensland Corrective Services, Probation and Parole, January 2010 and Report on Government Services 2010, Table 8A.3: NA Not Available.

Table 4D – Age comparison of Queensland Public Sector to Probation and Parole Directorate staff

19 & less

20–24 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 50–54 55–5 60–64 65 & over

Queensland Public Sector (%)

0.11 3.59 9.05 10.35 12.94 14.13 15.47 15.5 11.49 5.71 1.65

Probation and Parole Directorate (%)

0 11.83 21.83 14.83 10.33 6.50 8.67 11.33 8.00 4.83 1.83

Source: Queensland Public Service Characteristics 2009-10, page 10 and Queensland Corrective Services, January 2010.

The average daily Community Corrections offender population classified as Indigenous is 18.7 per cent.31 The number of Indigenous Probation and Parole staff is 25 fulltime equivalent officers which represents 4.2 per cent of the Probation and Parole workforce.

Queensland Corrective Services recognises, through the PRISM program, the need to improve staff skills and qualifications to address the imbalance between staff and offender mix (see Case Study 3E, Section 3.4). The program is evaluating ways of ensuring that resource allocations are optimised and that Probation and Parole offices are adequately staffed with the right mix of experienced officers. Currently 56 per cent of all operational positions have a Professional Officer designation requiring a tertiary qualification, usually in the human services and behavioural science field. By relaxing this requirement and recognising the life experience of potential applicants in an Administrative Officer, rather than Professional Officer designation, Probation and Parole expects to create a more diverse workforce.32 A relaxation of this requirement is likely to further increase the need to address the training issues identified in Section 4.4 of this report.

31 Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision, Report on Government Services 2010, Productivity Commission, Canberra, Table 8A.3. 32 Queensland Corrective Service, PRISM, version 3.1.1., February 2010, page 7.

Probation and Parole staff

numbers

Percentage (%) of Total Probation and

Parole Staff

Probation and Parole Offender

Numbers

Percentage (%) of Total Probation and

Parole Offenders

Females under 30 170 28.3 NA NA

Total female 449 74.8 2902 20.1

Males under 30 32 5.3 NA NA

Total male 151 25.2 11565 79.9

Total staff/offenders

600 100 14467 100


4.4 Training

4.4.1 Reporting Officer Development Program The three week Reporting Officer Development Program training is facilitated by the Queensland Corrective Services Training Academy. The Reporting Officer Development Program (RODP) provides a Certificate 1V in Correctional Practice (Community). The Academy is totally reliant on individual district offices nominating staff who need this training, as there is no system in place for tracking the training needs of Probation and Parole operational staff.

It is not unusual for Reporting Officers, usually under the supervision of an experienced Case Manager, to be allocated a full caseload of offenders to manage prior to undertaking Reporting Officer Development Program training. Most Probation and Parole Reporting Officers do not receive this training for months after commencement, in some cases up to 12 months. This delay in training relates to:

• A lack of effective coordination and alignment with course scheduling between the Probation and Parole Directorate and the Academy.

• Each region within Probation and Parole Directorate recruits staff on an as needs basis and there is no one system to coordinate recruitment across Probation and Parole Directorate and plan for RODP training sessions.

This delay results in untrained staff managing offenders. This contrasts with the training requirements in Queensland Corrective Services Custodial Operations, where staff cannot commence active work until they have undertaken initial training. Probation and Parole District offices are bridging the gap caused by delays in staff receiving Reporting Officer Development Program training by providing their own training program. This impacts on staff and resourcing and results in inconsistencies of skills and knowledge across districts. Furthermore, these delays may result in the early development of poor practices which have to be addressed when staff subsequently attend the Reporting Officer Development Program training.

There may be a risk that officers without sufficient training will not have appropriate skills to manage offenders in accordance with Probation and Parole Directorate’s policies and procedures. A consequence of this may be that Probation and Parole Directorate may not meet the government’s objective of a safe community.

The need for Probation and Parole staff to receive initial training was identified in the Tasmania Department of Justice, Review of Tasmania Community Corrections December 2008. This review proposed the development of a comprehensive ‘beginning practice program’ for all new staff to provide training on basic practice skills, including offender management, understanding legislation, conducting assessments report writing, building rapport, policies and procedures and occupational health (OH’S) issues.33 This review also recommended consideration be given to the development of a Directorate of Corrections to consolidate the central policy level functions across Community Corrections and the Tasmanian Prisons Service. This recommendation was intended to, among other potential benefits, increase opportunities for staff career progression and pathways across Community Corrections and the Prison Service.

33 Tasmania Department of Justice, Review of Tasmania Community Corrections, December 2008.


Queensland Corrective Services has initiated action to develop a detailed proposal to change the training model to a phased developmental and skill enhancement model linked to the implementation of the PRISM Program. Such a change to the training has the potential to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of the Probation and Parole Directorate’s training activities by coordinating it through the academy and reducing the need for regions to provide their own interim training.

4.4.2 On the job training Staff promoted from within the organisation are trained on the job. External applicants appointed to positions other than Reporting Officer level receive no formal training except for the compulsory online induction program. There are no formal training courses for staff who progress from the Reporting Officer role to Case Manager or Assessment Officer. Case Managers and Assessment Officers are required to conduct more complex case management than Reporting Officers.

Some district offices do not have a specialist supervisor role and supervision of Reporting Officer, Case Manager and Assessment Officer case loads are undertaken by the District Manager. Employees in these offices are able to seek guidance about policies and procedures on the intranet to assist them in their roles. Where supervisors are appointed there is no mandatory training to assist them. Supervisors are trained on the job and rely on their previous experience and the knowledge of their District Managers to provide them with the skills to perform their duties. The Academy provides diploma and advanced diploma courses for supervisors and managers in both the Probation and Parole Directorate and Custodial Operations. This training is not mandatory.

There is no requirement for staff to undertake refresher training to maintain accreditation after completion of the Reporting Officer Development Program. Any further training is voluntary and at the discretion of the individual. This contrasts with Custodial Operations staff who are required to update their skills every three years to retain accreditation. There is a risk that untrained officers could be providing a service that does not meet the organisational objective of effective supervision and rehabilitation of offenders. There may also be a risk that skills and abilities of staff become obsolete or stagnant without continuous updating and development.

4.4.3 Additional training in legislation Operational staff receive training in legislation during the Reporting Officer Development Program, but there is little further training. While management of Queensland Corrective Services and key staff at Central Office, District Managers and Regional Managers have knowledge of their responsibilities under the legislation, some operational staff do not have reasonable knowledge regarding legislation applicable to specific roles. For example, some Surveillance Officers were unsure of their legal status to perform their roles. The Probation and Parole Directorate provide no formal training to Surveillance Officers in the legislation under which they operate however, some Regional offices have developed localised training.

Compliance Officers supervise offenders on community service orders and manage offender contravention of orders. They are responsible for the preparation of court briefs and associated documents. They ensure contraventions of orders are brought before the court and that warrants are issued for those offenders who abscond from supervision. Compliance Officers receive no training except for the online induction package delivered to all staff. Given the necessity to understand legal issues, there is a risk to Queensland Corrective Services that the efficiency and effectiveness of dealing with contravention of orders will not meet the expectations of the court or the community.


4.5 Workforce – recommendations It is recommended the Department of Community Safety:

5 Ensure all staff at all levels of offender management receive timely and sufficient training, before, or immediately upon commencing duties.

6 Develop strategies to provide a staff mix that better reflects the offender diversity in accordance with Section 6.7 of the Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia – revised 2004.

Auditor-General Report to Parliament No. 1 for 2011 | Offender intervention programs 39

5 | Offender intervention programs

Summary

Background Queensland Corrective Services uses a risk, needs, responsivity model to direct its resources to the appropriate level of community supervision to offenders through their Probation and Parole Directorate. Queensland Corrective Services provides a range of internal programs to offenders to address their criminogenic behaviour and reduce the occurrence of reoffending. Intervention programs are delivered by Queensland Corrective Services and other external providers.

It was expected that intervention programs would be targeted to individual offender needs and evaluated for effectiveness.

Key findings • There are established systems in place to provide intervention programs to offenders.

• Six of the eight Queensland Corrective Services internal programs have been evaluated for effectiveness.

• External program providers and programs have not been accredited or evaluated for effectiveness by the department.

• There are opportunities to expand intervention programs to meet the needs of all offenders who require them.

• Indigenous programs require further development and evaluation to align with Indigenous needs.

40 Auditor-General Report to Parliament No. 1 for 2011 | Offender intervention programs

5.1 Offender intervention programs – overview Queensland Corrective Services has adopted the risk, needs, responsivity model based on the ‘what works’ principles. It has aligned internal programs to meet the needs of offenders supervised in the community. The model includes three levels of service delivery being case management, reporting and compliance. The model is intended to direct Queensland Corrective Services resources to the appropriate allocation of service to offenders based on the assessed level of risk of reoffending, intensive management of higher risk offenders and program integrity.

Offenders may be required to undertake intervention programs as part of their individual offender management plan. Queensland Corrective Services offer a range of internal programs to offenders to address their needs and to facilitate their rehabilitation. The Probation and Parole Directorate refer offenders to intervention programs based on their assessed level of needs.

There are four groups of programs delivered to offenders, each with different levels of input, accreditation and evaluation by the department. These are:

• Internal programs developed and delivered by Queensland Corrective Services Criminogenic Programs Unit targeted to high risk offenders.

– The majority of these programs have been evaluated in accordance with the Australian Offender Program Standards, 2005 and the Offender Intervention Programs Evaluation Framework.

• Programs delivered internally by external agencies, e.g. domestic violence program at Probation and Parole Southport office.

– These programs have not been evaluated, however Queensland Corrective Services has advised that an external evaluations panel has been established to evaluate these programs.

• Programs delivered by contracted service providers.

– Queensland Corrective Services has stated that these programs have been evaluated according to contract terms.

• Programs developed and delivered by non contracted external providers to offenders external to Queensland Corrective Services.

– These programs and service providers have not been evaluated by Queensland Corrective Services.

More detail of these programs can be found at Section 6.7.


5.2 Offender intervention programs – management and delivery

The Offender Intervention Programs Branch has overall responsibility for the provision, accreditation, management and delivery of intervention programs across both Custodial Operations and the Probation and Parole Directorate. The Australian Offender Program Standards – October 2005 and the Queensland Corrective Services Offender Intervention Programs Evaluation Framework provide the basis for the accreditation, evaluation and delivery of offender intervention programs. Offender intervention programs are assessed against the ‘what works’ principles of risk, need and responsivity. Research, relied upon by Queensland Corrective Services, indicates that programs based on these principles have been found to be more effective in reducing reoffending than programs that fail to adhere to these principles. Queensland Corrective Services have insufficient data to show the effects of their intervention programs on offender reoffending. Probation and Parole do however, record changes in individual offenders’ assessed needs before, during and after participation in an intervention program. This provides some indication of the likely effectiveness of a program.

The Probation and Parole Directorate provides relevant intervention programs to offenders under the community supervision service arm. The Probation and Parole Directorate’s policy and procedures require offender program selection and delivery to comply with the principles of effective intervention. If offenders are directed to attend intervention programs, Queensland Corrective Services must be satisfied that the programs are effective and suited to individual offender needs.

There are significant differences in how the Probation and Parole Directorate perform their role in respect of each of the four different program groups discussed in the overview section. The geographic location of offenders has a significant impact on intervention program delivery. The level of program evaluation also varies markedly for each of the four program groups.

The key internal programs developed and delivered by Queensland Corrective Services Criminogenic Programs Unit allows the Probation and Parole Directorate much greater control than the other groups of intervention programs provided to offenders. For these programs, facilitators are accredited and supervised by the unit to deliver the programs. Offenders undergo testing before and after program participation to assess their responsiveness to the program.

For the Indigenous programs, Program Delivery Officers often present programs with assistance from elders and respected peers in Indigenous communities who provide cultural and language interpretation. As the elders and peers are familiar with the program, rehabilitation of the offender is able to continue after the Program Delivery Officer has left the community. The use of Indigenous Program Delivery Officers and Cultural Liaison Officers in delivering Indigenous programs is viewed, at a district level, as enhancing the delivery and responsiveness of offenders to such programs. The Probation and Parole Directorate have access to only a few trained Indigenous staff to undertake this role.

For Brisbane and larger regional centres, there is generally full access to the full suite of Queensland Corrective Services programs and program delivery staff as well as external program providers. However, in one Probation and Parole region program choice is limited to external providers. Parole officers rely on local knowledge and experience to assess the external programs which most fit the offender’s needs. As these external programs have not been evaluated there are limitations in making these assessments.


Evidence from regional centres also indicates that offenders have been referred to health professionals in lieu of appropriate programs. There is no obligation on the health professional to provide feedback to Queensland Corrective Services staff. There was evidence of instances where health professionals declined to provide feedback, and in such cases there is no way for Probation and Parole staff to measure the effectiveness of such intervention referrals.

In some areas program availability is limited and it is necessary for offenders to wait for an available program date within the next twelve month period. Due to considerable waiting lists for some programs, offenders were not being placed on the waiting list by some Case Managers and instead directed to other interventions. As local program demand and scheduling is partly determined by program wait lists, the failure of staff to place offenders on waitlist may result in high demand programs not being identified and therefore appropriately scheduled.

The implementation of Indigenous programs need to account for issues not always present in implementing other programs. Examples of these issues include:

• Literacy and numeracy levels that can compromise programs which rely on written material such as workbooks.

• Cultural and gender specific issues that need to be catered for with cultural values varying between communities and within communities.

Indigenous offending programs are currently being enhanced to assist Program Delivery Officers to deliver them in a culturally sensitive manner. There has also been specific Indigenous programs facilitated in Badu Island, Thursday Island, Coen, Hopevale and Mornington Island during 2010.

5.3 Offender intervention programs – evaluation The Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia – revised 2004 (the Guidelines) provides for the evaluation of programs and makes no distinction between internally developed programs and external programs. Section 5.3 of those standards state that:

“…Programmes [sic] should be subject to a structured process of review and evaluation to ensure their efficacy in achieving their stated objectives...”

Queensland Corrective Services’ Intervention Programs Evaluation Framework (the Framework) was revised in 2010 to ensure consistency with the above standards and other research. The Framework outlines a methodology to ensure that Queensland Corrective Services:

• establishes a process to enable sustainable and credible offender intervention program evaluation

• produces timely and relevant offender intervention program evaluation reports and data

• assesses that offender intervention program practices reduce reoffending, mitigate reoffending risk, and are consistent with the evidence for effective programs.

The Framework also states that internal programs need to be evaluated every two years however not all Queensland Corrective Services developed programs have been evaluated within this timeframe.


The evaluation status of each program group at the time of audit is detailed below.

• Internal sexual offending programs developed and delivered by Queensland Corrective Services.

– These programs have been evaluated. Initial evaluation of general offending programs has also been completed and further internal evaluation of these programs is planned including assessment of the programs impact on offender reoffending. Indigenous program evaluations are still to commence and the evaluation of, Ending Offending and Ending Family Violence Programs are scheduled in 2011.

• Programs delivered internally by external agencies.

– Whilst this group of programs have not been reviewed or evaluated, Queensland Corrective Services has advised that an external evaluations panel has been established to evaluate these programs.

• Programs developed and delivered by non contracted external providers.

– None of the programs in this group have reviewed or evaluated.

• Programs delivered by contracted service providers.

– Queensland Corrective Services has stated that these programs have been evaluated according to contract terms.

Given the acknowledged and significant over representation of Indigenous offenders under community supervision, the timely evaluation of offender Indigenous programs including appropriate content and delivery is essential.

To ensure that programs are effective, staff involved at all levels of program development and delivery need to know the results of program evaluation. The results of the evaluation of the three key internal programs have been reported to senior management however the results of the evaluations have not been distributed to Program Delivery Officers or other key stakeholders. Program Delivery Officers need to know whether their delivery methods are effective and efficient and achieving the programs desired outcome. Officers involved in program development require this feedback to ensure that any changes that need to be made to existing programs are identified and actioned to ensure they meet offender needs and align with best practice principles.

As mentioned in Section 3.4, Probation and Parole officers do not conduct a formal finalisation or exit assessment with offenders completing their orders. Such a process could assist to determine the effectiveness of intervention programs.

5.4 Intervention programs – recommendations It is recommended the Department of Community Safety:

7 Ensure accreditation and evaluation of all intervention programs and continue the development of Indigenous programs to ensure relevance and effectiveness.


Auditor-General Report to Parliament No. 1 for 2011 | Appendices 45

6 | Appendices

6.1 Audit procedures The audit was conducted between July and September 2010 and focused on the systems in place at that time. The audit consisted of reviewing key documents related to Queensland Corrective Services and other areas of the Department of Community Safety. In addition, departmental staff across various levels and units within the department were interviewed. The key documents relied on included:

• legislation as a basis for offender management

• policy and procedures for managing offenders in the community

• initiative and strategy documents of the department

• governance frameworks for program evaluation and corporate reporting

• publications, internal and external, to the department for reporting performance

• internal audit reports

• ‘What works’ research literature that provides the basis for procedures for offender management

• Australian standards and guidelines for managing offenders and intervention programs.

6.2 PMS audit approach A Performance Management Systems (PMS) audit is an independent examination which includes determining whether an entity or part of an entity’s activities have performance management systems in place to enable management to assess whether its objectives are being achieved economically, efficiently and effectively.

The legislative basis for this audit is the Auditor-General Act 2009 (the Act). The Act prescribes that the Auditor-General may conduct an audit in the way the Auditor-General considers appropriate. While the Auditor-General takes note of the entity’s perspective, the scope of a public sector audit is at the sole discretion of the Auditor-General.

The Auditor-General applies the standards of the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board to audits in the Queensland public sector to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the requirements of the Act and other legislation that prescribes the Auditor-General’s work.

While a PMS audit will not review or comment on government policy, it will have regard to any relevant prescribed requirements. It may also extend to include a focus on the entity’s performance measures and whether, in the Auditor-General’s opinion, the performance measures are relevant, appropriate and fairly represent the entity’s performance.

46 Auditor-General Report to Parliament No. 1 for 2011 | Appendices

The intent of a PMS audit is to provide independent assurance to Parliament, and to act as a catalyst for adding value to the quality of public administration by assisting entities in the discharge of their governance obligations.

A PMS audit has a focus on ascertaining whether systems and controls used by management to monitor and measure performance, assist the entity in meeting its stewardship responsibilities.

6.3 Previous audit coverage The management of offenders subject to supervision in the community has not been the subject of any previous performance management systems audit in Queensland. The Queensland Audit Office is aware of a number of audits nationally and internationally covering the management of offenders subject to supervision in the community. While some of these previous audits have focussed on the supervision of community based orders generally, others have focused on specific aspects of community supervision. These audits are listed below:

• Managing Community Service Orders, Tasmanian Auditor-General Special Report No. 44, December 2002.

• National Probation Service: The supervision of community orders in England and Wales, (UK) National Audit Office, January 2008.

• Managing Offenders on Community Corrections Orders, Victorian Auditor-General’s Report 10:10, November 2009.

• Home Detention: Corrective Services NSW, New South Wales Auditor-General’s Performance Audit Report, September 2010.


6.4 Offender management process

Offender released on Board

Ordered Parole

Offender sentenced to either Probation,

Intensive Corrections Order, Prison/Probation

Order, Community Service Order, Court

Ordered Parole, Drug Rehabilitation Order,

Supervision Order pursuant to Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, or

Fine Option Order

Transition Program or

Transitional support

Transition Program or

Transitional support

Probation & Parole

Induction Process(complete within

3 scheduled contacts)

Assessment ProcessIncl. Offender Management Plan

(6 weeks)

Allocation to Reporting Officer

(Lower Risk Offenders)

Reporting Stream #

Management and continued

monitoring for compliance with order

Allocation to Case Management

(Higher Risk and Sex Offenders)

Compliance Contravention

Offender

successfully

completes order

Continue on Order

Implement Breach

action which may

result in sanctions or

return to court for

suspension of order

Case Management Stream #

Management and continued

monitoring for compliance with order

The Management and continued monitoring of offenders allocated to the case management stream will be more intensive than that

applied to offenders under the reporting stream. Offenders being case managed will usually be required to:

• Report more frequently to their Probation and Parole Officer

• Be subjected to stricter supervision

• Undertake additional or different intervention programs or services.

#


6.5 Staff role descriptions Assessment Officers Specialist assessment staff conduct assessments and establish a

management plan for each offender based on their reoffending risk and individual needs.

Case Management Officers Case management officers are Probation and Parole’s most experienced officers who focus on helping high risk offenders to develop the skills required to successfully complete their order and to prevent re-offending. Case management officers work closely with corrective services, intelligence officers, local police and community organisations and agencies.

Reporting Officers Reporting officers are responsible for the ongoing monitoring and supervision of low to medium risk offenders. They work closely with community agencies and are responsible for implementing the offender’s management plan and ensuring offenders comply with their orders.

Compliance Officers Compliance officers are responsible for the preparation of court briefs and associated documents following the contravention of court orders. They ensure contraventions of orders are brought before the court quickly and efficiently, and that warrants are issued for those offenders who abscond from supervision. This role also involves supervising offenders on community service orders.

Surveillance Officers Surveillance officers are responsible for ensuring offenders are complying with the terms of their orders. They are involved in activities such as breath and urinalysis testing, ensuring high risk offenders adhere to curfews and determining whether offenders are providing accurate personal details.

Court Services The Judicial Liaison Unit provides consistent and standardised information to courts, regional managers and district managers.

Programs Staff Includes Program Delivery Officers and Senior Program Delivery Officers. Intervention programs are delivered to offenders on court-orders across the State through a network of eight dedicated programs hubs. While working with Probation and Parole, the program staff in these hubs are part of Queensland Corrective Services, Offender Programs and Services Directorate to ensure a higher quality of practice and supervision in their specialised roles. Programs staff include regional coordinators (Senior Program Delivery Officers) who establish and manage the program hubs, and work in collaboration with Probation and Parole regional managers, district managers and operational staff. Intervention programs are delivered to offenders by Program Delivery Officers.

Source: Queensland Corrective Services, Probation and Parole, page 4.5.


6.6 Description of order types Parole (granted by Parole Board)

Prisoners who have been convicted of sex offences or serious violent offences or who are sentenced to more than three years in jail must apply to a Parole Board for release to parole.

Court ordered parole Prisoners sentenced to three years or less imprisonment (except sex offenders and serious violent offenders) are given a parole release date by the sentencing court.

Probation order On a probation order the sentence (six months to three years) is served in the community. The order may include special conditions such as drug testing. The offender reports regularly to a community correctional officer.

Intensive correction order An Intensive Correction Order is a prison sentence of up to 12 months, served in the community rather than in prison. The order may contain special conditions. Offenders must report to a Probation and Parole officer twice a week, and do up to 12 hours counselling and community service or programs each week.

Prison/Probation order The offender is sentenced to an initial term of imprisonment (up to 12 months) and completes the sentence in the community on a probation order (up to three years).

Community service order A Community Service Order can be made for between 40 and 240 hours. The offender may work one to five days a week with a supervisor. The offender can do community service if they have a full time job, and they can fit it in with family or other commitments.

Intensive drug rehabilitation order

There are drug courts at Beenleigh, Southport, Ipswich, Cairns and Townsville. The offender may be eligible for an intensive drug rehabilitation order. This is a suspended prison sentence and involves frequent court appearances, counselling and community service. The offender attends rehabilitation programs and treatment and is regularly tested for drugs.

Supervision orders pursuant to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003

These supervision orders provide for the detention or supervision of offenders convicted of serious sexual offences, beyond the expiry of their sentence. An offender may receive either a continuing detention order extending their period of detention, or an order for their release on a continuing supervision order in the community.

Fine option orders Court ordered fines can be issued from any Supreme, District or Magistrates Court in Queensland, and can be for a variety of different offences, for example, drink driving, stealing or fraud. If the offender can not afford to pay a fine in full, or to pay by regular instalments, the offender may be eligible to have their fine converted to unpaid community service. As long as the offender completes all the hours of community service ordered, the offender will not have to pay the fine.

Source: Derived from Queensland Corrective Services, Guidelines for the Management of High Risk/DPSOA Offenders in the community, version 1.0, September 2009; Queensland Corrective Services Back on Track, and Probation and Parole booklets and Department of Justice and Attorney General, State Penalties and Enforcement Registry www.sper.qld.gov.au/foo_faq.htm


6.7 List of intervention programs Program area Details

Programs developed and delivered by Probation and Parole

General offending Three programs one addressing readiness to change and two programs addressing abstinence and obsessive behaviour.

Sexual offending Three programs at preparatory, medium intensity and maintenance levels addressing sexual offending.

Indigenous programs Two programs with the first addressing the drinking and offending behaviour of Aboriginal offenders in the correctional system. The second targets ending violence within the family and/or community.

Programs developed externally and delivered by Probation and Parole

Alcohol and drug The ‘DO IT’ program is a low intensity substance abuse intervention coordinated by the Alcohol and Drug Foundation Queensland and delivered in partnership with Queensland Corrective Services Program Delivery Officers (PDOs). PDOs have been trained and accredited to deliver this program. The ‘DO IT’ program has been accredited by the agency.

Domestic violence The Men’s Domestic Violence program is coordinated by the Domestic Violence Prevention Centre and delivered in partnership with Queensland Corrective Services PDOs. PDOs have been trained and accredited to deliver this program. The program provides support to offenders in relation to their domestic violence offending. The program is 24 weeks in duration and is delivered through South-East Queensland Probation and Parole offices.

Programs developed externally and delivered at external agencies As well as specific programs, support may include counselling, fellowship support and referral services. Some organisations offer programs across a range of these areas.

Alcohol and drug Providing support to offenders to address alcohol and/or substance abuse issues.

Relationships Providing support to offenders to address relationship issues. Delivery organisations include those that target specific relationship areas including men’s issues, relationships or parenting.

Domestic violence Providing support to offenders to address domestic violence issues. Delivery organisations include those that focus on specific groups including men only, women only or Indigenous people.

Anger management Providing support to offenders to address domestic violence issues. Delivery organisations include those that focus on specific groups including men only, women only or Indigenous people.

Financial Providing support to offenders to address financial issues. Delivery organisations include those that assist with developing individual financial plans, providing income management and assisting in debt management.

Driving Providing support to offenders to address driving issues. Delivery organisations include those that target driving under the influence of alcohol, disqualified driving, unlawful motor vehicle, assisting Indigenous people to obtain a licence.

Parenting Providing support to offenders to address parenting issues. Delivery organisations include those that target fathers, mothers, young mothers, child health and well being.

Gambling Providing support to offenders to address gambling issues. Delivery organisations include those that target offenders and those that target families and friends affected by the offenders gambling.

Numeracy and literacy Providing support to offenders with numeracy and literacy issues.

Mental health Providing support to offenders with mental health issues. Delivery organisations include psychologist referrals, counselling, youth specific programs, and Indigenous specific programs.


Program area Details

Indigenous specific Programs across all areas tailored specifically for Indigenous people.

Generalist Many organisations provide offender support across a range of program areas which may at times be included in the same program delivered to the offender.

External service providers (provided under service level agreements)

Visitor transport services A free service that operates from major metropolitan and regional centres and enables families and friends to visit prisoners in custody.

Religious services Provision of multi-faith pastoral care and religious services for prisoners in custody.

Indigenous services Provision of pastoral and spiritual care to assist prisoners to maintain their connection with the community.

General offending programs Sexual offending programs Indigenous programs

Turning point – Readiness to change program

Getting started – Preparatory program for sexual offending

Ending offending – The overall aim is to modify the drinking and offending behaviour of Aboriginal offenders in the correctional system

Getting smart – Abstinence from addictive behaviour

Medium intensity sexual offending program – For male sexual offenders who have been assessed as having a low to medium risk of re-offending

Ending family violence – This program targets Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders who have been convicted of offences related to violence within their family and/or community

Smart recovery – Follow on support program for the one above

Staying on track – sexual offending maintenance program – Targeted at offenders who have previously successfully completed an intensive sexual offending program


6.8 Acronyms

AIC Australian Institute of Criminology

DCS Department of Community Safety

DPSOA Dangerous Prisoner (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003

HROMU High Risk Offender Management Unit

IOMS Integrated Offender Management System

OMP Offender Management Plans

ORSS Offender Reintegration Support Services

PDO Program Delivery Officer

PMS Performance Management Systems

PRISM People, Resourcing, Innovation, Supervision, Management

QCS Queensland Corrective Services

QPS Queensland Public Sector

RODP Reporting Officer Development Program

ROGS Report on Government Services

RoR Risk of Reoffending

SDS Service Delivery Statement


6.9 Glossary

Biometric Reporting Biometric Reporting requires an offender to attend a Probation and Parole Office to swipe their fingerprint at an automatic teller machine style kiosk.34

Criminogenic Criminogenic needs are dynamic risk factors that when changed are associated with changes in recidivism.35

Economy The acquisition of the appropriate quality and quantity of resources at the appropriate times and at the lowest cost.

Effectiveness The achievement of objectives or other intended effects of activities at a program or entity level.

Efficiency The use of resources such that output is optimised for any given set of resource inputs, or input is minimised for any given quantity and quality of output.

Offender A person on whom the Court or releasing authority has imposed a community corrections order.36

Offender Intervention Program An offender intervention program is a structured intervention that addresses the factors directly linked to offenders’ offending behaviour.37

Prisoner

A person sentenced by the Court to a term of imprisonment or ordered by the Court to be detained in a prison.38

34 Corrective Services Queensland, PRISM Program, Version 3.1.1, February 2010, page 26. 35 Definition provided by Queensland Corrective Services. 36 Australian Institute of Criminology, Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia – revised 2004, page 4.

37 Australian Offender Program Standards, October 2005, page 2. 38 Australian Institute of Criminology, Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia – revised 2004, page 4.


Recidivism Reoffending.

Responsivity Responsivity refers to internal and external factors that influence an offender’s capacity to participate in and benefit from intervention.39

6.10 References

Australian Institute of Criminology, Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia – revised 2004

Australian Institute of Criminology, Integrated Responses to Domestic Violence: Legally Mandated Intervention Programs for Male Perpetrators, December 2010

Corrective Services Act 2006

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003

Criminal Justice Commission, Prisoner Numbers in Queensland: An Examination of Population Trends in Queensland’s Correctional Institutions, March 2000

Department of Community Safety, Annual Report , 2010

Department of Community Safety, Delivering Justice – Improving Corrections, Queensland Corrective Services Framework for Reform 2010-2014

Department of Community Safety, Indigenous Priority Statement, 2009-13, and Action Plan, 2009

Department of Community Safety, Service Delivery Statement, 2010-2011

Hoban Recruitment, Queensland Corrective Services Workforce Analysis, 2009

Howells, Kevin, Heseltine, Karen, et al, University of South Australia, Correctional Offender Rehabilitation Programs: The National Picture in Australia, 2004

National Accreditation of Offence Related Programs Working Group, Australian Offender Programs Standards, 2005

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992

Queensland Audit Office, Better Practice Guide on Performance Reviews, 2010

Queensland Corrective Services, Assessment, Management and Supervision of Sex Offenders in Queensland, 2006

Queensland Corrective Services, Guidelines for the Management of High Risk/DPSOA Offenders in the Community, September 2009, v1

Queensland Corrective Services, Offender program administration manual, October 2006

Queensland Corrective Services, Probation and Parole Overview, June 2006

Queensland Corrective Services, Throughcare Strategic Plan, 2008- 2012

39 Tasmanian Department of Justice, Corrective Services, Breaking the Cycle – Tasmanian Corrections Plkan 2010 – 2020, Best Practice in Offender Rehabilitation, page 2.


Queensland Government, Performance Management Framework, 2009

SCRGSP (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision) 2010, Report on Government Services 2010, Productivity Commission, Canberra

Tasmanian Department of Justice, Corrective Services, Breaking the Cycle – Tasmanian Corrections Plan (2010-2020) Best Practice in Offender Rehabilitation

Tasmania Department of Justice, Review of Tasmania Community Corrections, December 2008

Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, Managing Offenders on Community Corrections Orders, November 2009.


Auditor-General Report to Parliament No. 1 for 2011 | Auditor-General Reports to Parliament 57

7 | Auditor-General

Reports to Parliament

7.1 Tabled in 2011

Report No. Subject Date tabled in

Legislative Assembly

1 Auditor-General Report to Parliament No. 1 for 2011

Management of offenders subject to supervision in the community Performance Management Systems audit

February 2011

Publications are available at www.qao.qld.gov.au or by phone on 07 3149 6000.

58 Auditor-General’s Report to Parliament No. 1 for 2011 | Auditor-General Reports to Parliament

Documents

RTP 1 for 2011 - Queensland Audit Office · within Queensland Corrective Services is responsible for the management of offenders in the community. Its aim is to break the cycle of